Chad's question number 2

Yes, it's that time again! And, it's not really suprising that at least one of his questions would have to do with wrestling :p

What's been your favourite wrestling match and/or story so far?

Well, I actually have a HORRIBLE memory in general, but especially when it comes to something that even now I haven't really really gotten in to. I more just watch it with Chad as a way to spend time together and we have fun making fun of people and getting excited when something cool happens. So, to figure out what my favourite match or story has been so far I thought would be kind of difficult, if only because I don't remember most of them. Then I though, well, the ones that I do remember must either be because I liked them a lot or because they were really stupid, of which I can easily discern the two. So... based off of my memory, here are a few of my favs!

1. Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker at Wrestlemania in 2009 (I forget which one that was, but since everyone seemed to like that match, I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about). We watched that one together at a bar down the street and I think it was the most fun I've ever had with wrestling. The bar was pretty packed (unlike other PPV nights) and I got so caught up in the quality and suspense that match had. I still remember how I felt during that match even if I don't really remember most of what happened. I won't say that the whole feud is my favourite, but that match itself is definitely at the top of my list.

2. The Macho Man and the Ultimate Warrior: only because of the hilarious promos the two of those guys give!!!

3. Shawn Michaels and JBL. At the time, I HATED this story because I couldn't see why Shawn Michaels would be such a wimp and willingly be under someone like JBL. But I see now that that was a smart thing and it also was able to bring out emotion in me. It brought out the ass that JBL is and set up a good retirement story for him. I think that the timing of this story and how well played out it all was was really just perfect and only upon reflecting on it do I think that it was really good.

4. This new Kane/The Undertaker thing. I guess it's a little too premature to list this one, but I'm really really looking forward to seeing what happens with this and I'm glad that they're using Kane in a scary but not too stupidly monster-like way.

So You Think You Can Dance

Hello again!

As you may or may not know, I really enjoy watching American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance. SYTYCD just had it's first voting show last night, which I taped and watched this morning. I haven't really watched any of the show up until now, which is typically what I do for American Idol, but not for SYTYCD because even though they may not all be the best dancers, you typically get really good dancers in the auditions and future tryouts.

This year the producers of SYTYCD have decided to change the format of the competition (side note: this word always makes me think of Kozlov saying 'I demand better competition!'... and then I chuckle to myself...) where instead of each of the contestants being paired up with each other, as seen in previous seasons, there are fewer contestants (11 vs. the usual 20-24) and each are paired with a different 'all-star' dancer who has been on the show before and are known for the style of dance they will be dancing in. At first, I didn't like this idea mainly because I thought I would spend most of the time watching the all-stars that I know from different seasons and not really care about the contestants. However, I didn't find this to be the case at all. I also was worried from the competition's perspective that the all-stars would make all of the dancers look so good that it would be difficult to determine who was actually a better dancer. After thinking about it, I don't think that was the case either. In fact, as the show neared the end, it became more obvious as to which contestants were able to step up to their all-star's level (all of which were absolutely fantastic and the show did a great job at picking them!) and which contestants were being dragged along for the ride.

My favourite routine was by far the third dance of the night which was a hip-hop routine choreographed by Tabitha and Napoleon and was danced by all-star Comfort and contestant Jose. It was so amazing and well done that I think I watched it over about 10 times in full and just the opening sequence another 10 at least.

All in all, I really like this new set up of the show and I think that it makes the quality of the dancing on the show much higher. While I didn't watch any of the judges comments (I really only like watching the dancing parts of the show), I don't think there was a single flop routine the entire night!

So, if you're a fan of the show, or dancing, at all, I would check it out this season for sure!

Chad's question number 1

Hi everyone!

I am in a strange state of waiting around this morning with nothing to do at work, so I figured why not make more of a presence on this blog!

In an effort to stimulate discussion on here, Chad has written me 5 questions, all of which I will attempt to answer throughout the week (or maybe 2... we'll see!).

Question #1: While you haven't read a lot of it yet, how does the book Pride and Prejudice match up against the various film and TV adaptations you've seen? What's been your favourite version to date?

Just to give you a little bit of background info, I have been a big fan of Pride and Prejudice for a few years now, since my old roommate showed me the BBC series version. Since then, I have watched many BBC versions of Jane Austen novels and have loved most of them. For Christmas this past year, Chad bought me a book of several Jane Austen novels and the first one that I started reading was Pride and Prejudice because it is the one that I know the best and my favourite. I also own the newer blockbuster version of Pride and Prejudice.

I would say that by far I like the BBC series version the best, even compared to the novel. I think this is because in the movie, you really get to see all of the grandiose sets and costumes that you really don't get much description of in the novel. However, I do really enjoy reading the book after seeing the movies because it gives me a bit more to base the imagry off of. One thing I really do like about the book is the description of subtle details in people's body language and tone of voice, etc. that you can easily miss in the movies or just aren't included, as it is a very long story. Definately the movie with Keira Knightley is my least favourite. I just don't think that she is a good choice for the role and the whole thing was just too Hollywood and too condensed to get the same feel from it as the novel originally intended. Though, I don't necessarily think that remakes of movies need to reflect the original, it's just hard not to notice it in a story that you love so much and when it's almost impossible not to compare it to the novel or the BBC version.

Question #2 to come shortly! Well, probably tomorrow :)

Michelle

Bloomsday 2010: Some Words on Ulysses

Today is Bloomsday, the day that marks worldwide celebration surrounding Ulysses by James Joyce since the novel takes place on June 16, 1904. I just remember that and don't have anything planned to mark the occasion -- nor have I ever in the past. I just wanted to talk about Ulysses briefly since it's a novel that holds a big place in my life.

It's been almost four years since I've read Ulysses. That was my second time reading the novel, which I'd read a year-and-a-half previously when I took a one-semester special topics course on it. The class was taught by Michael Groden and I was very pleased to learn on the first day that he's a rather prominent Joyce scholar. The class was focused on Ulysses, but we began by reading Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and ended with a selection from Finnegans Wake. You need context after all. That course is probably still one of my favourites from my six years of university. My favourite, actually. It was a very relaxed course where the schedule was one or two episodes from the novel each week, a weekly quiz on plot points to encourage us to keep up with the reading, a presentation, and two essays. No final exam, no testing of what was actually taught. It was a course where the goal was to genuinely learn about and interact with this stunning work of fiction. I never took notes, I simply sat in the front row (a rarity for me) and listened. It was a wonderful way to experience the novel.

The first time reading Ulysses isn't great. You stumble around trying to figure out what's happening more than anything. Joyce's writing is obtuse and difficult in a lot of places, so just understanding what's happening is a chore. You don't really have time to appreciate what's he's doing a lot of the time. You obviously appreciate it nonetheless, it's just that you're distracted by the plot. Reading it in a large group like that class is a great motivator and place where you can feed on the energy of everyone. You're all in it together, all wanting to understand and work your way through -- and having a guy like Groden to lead things made it fantastic. I reread it during the late summer of 2006 prior to moving to Windsor to do my Master's and liked it more. With the plot not a strong concern, there was more freedom to revel in the style and the language of Joyce's writing.

Ulysses consists of 18 chapters (usually called episodes) all done in different styles, each also representing a portion of Odysseus's journey in The Odyssey. It focuses on Leopold Bloom on a single day with Stephen Dedalus playing a supporting role. The novel begins with Dedalus for three episodes, spends the next 14 with Bloom as he wakes up, goes out into Dublin, and returns home, and the final episode is all Bloom's wife Molly. The plot is mundane -- just another day really. Important things in the lives of the three happen, but I don't think it would be a day that stands out necessarily. It's the way that Joyce tells the story that makes this book so wonderful. His use of the underlying structure, the shifting narrative techniques that become more bold as the novel progresses, his willingness to take on any idea or subject...

I'll be honest: on an emotional level, I like Portrait more. I see a lot of myself in Stephen Dedalus in that novel and just relate to it better (not Dedalus in Ulysses, though). But, Ulysses casts a larger shadow on me. It was one of the big influences on the novel I wrote for my Master's thesis, "Infinite Future" where the first part focuses on one character, the second part is twelve chapters all in different styles, and the final part is a stream-of-conscious finale. I love the idea of using an underlying structure and shifting your style between chapters.

The funny thing about that is that the tour de force of Ulysses, the episode where Joyce really shows off how amazingly talented he is, is also the chapter that's the most difficult to read: "Oxen of the Sun." In that episode, Joyce moves through the history of literature, changing style with every paragraph. It begins without language, progressing through time and writers. It's astonishing how well he does it, but it makes following the narrative of the episode difficult since he will filter actions and events through the writer/genre he's mimicking. A gothic or romantic convention obscures what's happening.

Of course, that begs the question: is it really that great if you can't read it?

Well, yeah. You can read it, it's just difficult -- or, rather, it's challenging. Ulysses is a challenging, demanding work. You need to pay attention and take things slow. You need to reread sentences and paragraphs. You need to not go it alone.

I've often tried to put into words why Ulysses is so great. It makes the mundane epic. It experiments and pushes. It's ambitious -- probably the most ambitious novel that I can think of. So, Happy Bloomsday. If you've never given Ulysses a shot, I highly recommend it. It's worth it.

Hell's Kitchen Episodes 07.03 & 07.04

This is the third season of Hell's Kitchen I've watched. More like the second-and-a-half since I only watched bits and pieces of season five, I believe. Michelle and I watched all of season six (not always together, though) and it's one of the few reality shows I can get into. The other is Celebrity Apprentice. Some brief thoughts on last night's two episodes:

* It's still too early to really root for anyone. These early episodes are mostly struggles to remember everyone's name and not getting too attached because any of them could be going home. The show basically has two parts to its season: the goofy, stupid first 2/3s where it's too crowded and everyone sucks; and, the more serious, skilled final 1/3 where the quality folks remain and it becomes less about arguing with one another and more about doing good work. These early episodes are goofy and meant to be laughed at as people act like fucking idiots.

* Jason's anger at being put up for elimination last week was understandable since Ramsay chose another person from the men's team to go home. The episode began with Jason pissed off and rightly so: he obviously didn't deserve to be put up there if Ramsay picked someone not nominated.

* Watching people walk the line between self-interest and helping the team is interesting.

* In the first challenge, Fran really bothered me because she hid her burns and tried to continue, which hurt her team. I would have sent her home because safety should be the first concern and someone like that shouldn't be there. Ramsay should have been harder on her for it.

* Scott says the same thing over and over again in his solo moments -- he's a leader, he's there to help others so the team does well... it's funny to see him say the same shit over and over again, and then him be the guy who fucks up the most. Then again, the reason why Salvatore did so well is because of Scott helping him -- something Ramsay doesn't see.

* Has a service ever gone as well as that one did so early into the season? The mistakes were small and minor, quickly corrected, and Ramsay was right not to eliminate anyone.

All in all, entertaining stuff. None of the women really stand out as great yet, but a couple of the guys are very solid/good.

Imperial Bedrooms by Bret Easton Ellis

I really think that—and I’ve said this before—but I think that LA forces you to become the person you really are. I don’t think LA is a place where you’re allowed to reinvent yourself. It absolutely isn’t. There’s an isolating quality to a life lived out here. I don’t care how many friends you have. I don’t care if you have a relationship. Whatever. It’s just an isolating city. You’re alone a lot. And I think it forces you to become the person you really are. It doesn’t allow you to hide. I think New York is a much easier place to kind of reinvent yourself. In LA, over time, the real person you are ultimately comes out, or else people can’t deal with that and they flee before it happens.

--Bret Easton Ellis, Vice Magazine

I avoided reading too much about Bret Easton Ellis's seventh novel, Imperial Bedrooms which came out today, until I'd read it myself. It arrived from Amazon.ca today and I spent the late morning/early afternoon reading it. It's not a long book, only 169 pages. Brisk, easy to plough through while still taking your time to enjoy it. It's a sequel of sorts to his first novel, Less Than Zero. If you want to know the biggest difference between the two books, that quote from Ellis to Vice. Less Than Zero was a novel where the narrator/protagonist Clay is passive. He floats through this world of decadence and drama and awfulness without really doing anything. He's an observer. Here, he returns to LA, seemingly for only a month ala Less Than Zero, but we slowly see what an awful person he is. He's a user, an exploiter, an egocentric douchebag that thinks it's all about him, so the narrative becomes all about him.

The novel begins with Ellis addressing Less Than Zero by having the novel and film adaptation exist in this world. The novel was written by someone that Clay and the group knew -- he told it like it was. The film adaptation was toned down and changed because the people making it didn't want to have their kids shown like that. There's a wonderful moment where Clay describes seeing a screening of the film before it comes out with most of the people from the book and Julian's stunned reaction to seeing 'himself' killed on screen. That segues into the actual death of Julian, which is told to us right then, but doesn't happen until the end of the novel.

The manner in which Ellis begins Imperial Bedrooms isn't essential. There's no need to address the book/film, because this is a sequel to them. Why would they necessarily exist in this world? Partly, an introduction for any new readers, I imagine. It allows Ellis to do a quick 'recap' in a manner that interacts with what a reader new to his work may understand. They may know of Less Than Zero, but never read the book or seen the film. This gives the substance, while also allows Ellis to distance himself from both. He points out differences, even critiques both a little. So, this is a sequel, but not quite. Not really, because neither the book nor the movie was 100% accurate to the world of this novel.

Also, Clay is a screenwriter. The structure of the novel is a series of scenes/shots, so beginning with a framing/pre-credits flashback scene makes sense. It's the sort of bullshit, unnecessary bit that's added into a lot of movies. It serves a function of sorts, but not really. It's there because they think the audience is too dumb to follow along without some hand-holding at the beginning.

The use of short sections does go back to Less Than Zero. This picks up from there, but there's also a sense of these being scenes/shots in a movie. Clay's language is very flat and to the point. Minimalist and direct. Ellis returns to a restained narrative style that's different from his others. While he has certain consistencies, this novel is more minimal in its use of language than everything since Less Than Zero. Even the dialogue scenes are shorter, less drawn out than usual. However, he does play with that by sometimes crafting run-on sentences with numerous clauses that twist too much, becoming confusing somewhat. In a few spots, I had to reread sentences to see how they fit together entirely. Clay is simple and direct, but likes to think of himself as better than that sometimes.

His progression through the novel is subtle and sneaks up on you. He begins by seeming affable and likeable. He's self-depricating and has a sense of humour about himself. He even recognises his place in the world as a writer -- he's not a novelist, he's a screenwriter. But, as the novel progresses, we get hints of who he really is. He's the kind of guy who uses his role in filmmaking to fuck young actors and actresses with the promise of an audition or role -- a promise he may or may be able to deliver on. It's a transaction often done automatically by both parties, so subtle that the lack of explicit statement makes it seem less tawdry. But, there's a part where he discusses a transaction of this sort with an actor in one of the movies he wrote and how it became explicit, making Clay come off as selfish and sad, cruel almost. Granted, the actor chose to let Clay have sex with him, but it's still an abuse of power.

The plot centres on Clay having a 'relationship' of this sort with Rain, an actress that sucks. The transaction is clear, but it's not as apparent at first. We know what's happening, our faces aren't rubbed in it. But, as she grows impatient and he grows more demanding, it becomes horribly explicit. She won't get a part in the movie that's being cast (The Listeners, a stand-in for The Informers) and everyone knows that, but he still pushes her, threatens her, tries to buy her (without ever actually buying her). We learn that this is really the only way that he can get off. This is what he likes best. He likes being in this position of power, of forcing people to do as he wishes. He's a selfish prick.

When other characters say that he's too self-involved, it rings slightly false, because they're all self-involved. It's like when you and your buddy both want the last slice of pizza and one of you tells the other to stop being so selfish -- it's bullshit, because you're both being selfish. These are people who tell Clay to break it off with Rain for their own purposes, never telling him why he should, just that there's more going on than he knows... of course he doesn't break it off.

Then again, why doesn't he?

He seems to care for her, but it's hard to say why. He wonders at one point how she's such a bad actress on screen/in auditions, but so good in real life. Is it just that he knows how much she wants to be famous that he knows he gets off on prolonging their 'relationship?'

Like the last two Ellis novels, there's a general sense of paranoia and that we (and the narrator) are not privy to a lot of necessary information. Clay receives text messages that say he's being watched and that give him advice -- all from blocked, unknown numbers. He's being followed by a blue jeep and a black Rolls Royce. People are telling him what to do without explaining themselves, speaking cryptically. His sense of fear and paranoia is justified to a degree. Then again, how much of it is him just not paying attention? Not hearing what other people have to say? How much information are we denied because he is too self-involved and stupid to see what's going on? We are limited to his perspective. Obviously there are things he just can't know, but we can't know how much of that is fact and how much is because he's too self-involved.

Like the last two, there is a plot driving this forward. It's influenced somewhat by Raymond Chandler with a mystery at the centre, but more in the Haruki Murakami way where you don't really get a solution. Not everything ties together nicely. We learn how Julian dies, but not entirely why. Not everything is wrapped up neatly. Lunar Park played with horror conventions and this plays with mystery stories.

The path that Clay takes through the novel culminates in one section that shows his true self. It's not shocking in and of itself, but in a book relatively free of the explicit sex and violence of previous Ellis works, it stands out. In it, Clay is totally revealed and it is a natural progression of his relationship with Rain and other actors/actresses. He uses two prostitutes (male and female) in some horribly degrading and awful ways. He stayed in LA too long. There was a chance for him to escape back to New York or to Las Vegas to 'reinvent' himself, to put up a mask... but, no, as Ellis told Vice, he was alone too long, isolated even when with others and his true self comes out. It's not terribly revealing since many others have shown the 'true self' to be a debaucherous, violent, selfish prick, but it still stands out nonetheless.

I'm not entirely sure how others fans of Ellis will react to this book. It stands alone from Less Than Zero well enough, though it mirrors it in many ways. The same premise (return to LA from the east coast around the holidays), the same narrator, the same strained relationships with the same people... but what changes is who Clay is. He isn't as passive, he isn't someone who fades into the background as much... he was obviously shaped by things that happened to him in Less Than Zero, but maybe it was all there already.

The ending of the novel knocked me on my ass. It ends with a line that is so revealing that it manages to sum everything up perfectly. Actually, the entire final section, a single paragraph that reveals Clay as far less passive than you thought. Far more sadistic, cruel, fearful, and loathsome. It's the sort of ending that makes you want to read the book again. If that isn't a recommendation, I don't know what is.

Link Roundup

What I wrote (or contributed to) online this past week:

411mania
* Wrestling Top Five -- Shots Heard 'Round the World
* High Road/Low Road on the Viewer's Choice episode of Raw
* PPV Roundtable on TNA Slammiversary VIII
* Wrestling 4Rs including my review of the 06.10.10 TNA Impact
* Wrestler of the Week Year 6 Week 11

Comic Book Resources Reviews
* Predators #1
* Batman #700
* Ultimate Comics Avengers 2 #3
* Captain America #606
* Spider-Man: Fever #3
* Robert E. Howard's Hawks of Outremer #1
* The Unwritten #14

GraphiContent
* Quickie Reviews (June 9 2010)
* The Comment That Made My Day (June 10, 2010)
* Book Group: Ode to Kirihito (Chapters 1-7)

Comics Should be Good
* Random Thoughts! (June 15, 2010)

The Splash Page Podcast
* The Splash Page Podcast episode 19
* The Splash Page Podcast episode 20

Smarkass Comments: WWE Raw 06.14.10

After last week's fantastic ending, this episode faltered a little with the whole NXT rookies invading. They made the rookies look too weak here -- and the WWE look too united. The opening segment was very strong with all of the rookies failing to apologise and Bret Hart firing Wade Barrett as a result. The way they handled the Bryan Daniel/Daniel Bryanson situation was fine with me -- though, if you looked at this as a coherent piece of writing, Bryanson feeling guilt over what happened last week wouldn't fit his character at all since he attacked Michael Cole numerous times and was the most vicious last week (or among the most vicious at least). But, it had to be done. Not his firing (which could be a work, but that doesn't look likely) -- a firing that just comes off as stupid pure and simple. Ah well.

The rest of the episode couldn't match that opening. Mostly mediocre to awful matches. Putting the US title back on the Miz seems odd, even if it's just a way to get another match booked for Sunday's Fatal 4-Way pay-per-view. The Jericho/Bourne match was fine for the three minutes it was given, but the finish was questionable. Why have Bourne kick out of the Codebreaker and not go anywhere with it?

The midshow Cena/NXT segment was kind of stupid. I didn't like the WWE guys who came out to fend off the NXT guys, partly because it's too soon for the NXT gang to be on the run. Partly because we're talking about an initial group that includes Santino. And, partly because it just makes me wonder why no one came out last week if what the NXT guys did was so disrespectful to the entire locker room. Wouldn't they have came charging out then?

The final match wasn't too bad. Not anything amazing, but a solid match. Was Chris Jericho on the ramp with the other Raw members? I didn't see him, but I could be blind. The shit with Bret Hart and the limo was kind of lame. A regular beatdown would have suited me fine.

Less convinced that the WWE knows what it's doing with the NXT angle, but still optimistic. Not an awful Raw, but not one that knocked me on my ass. Last minute Fatal 4-Way booking and typical short matches. The WWE's inability to book heel stables as dominant lately bothers me. That's how people get over: the heels dominate, the faces get their asses handed to them and eventually come back to win. While I don't follow CHIKARA too closely, its current Bruderschaft des Kruzes storyline is a lesson in doing that story correctly. No one cares if a weakass faction gets beaten. That's why Legacy failed and why the Straight Edge Society isn't taking off as much as it could be (CM Punk is crazy over, but the SES isn't much of a threat most of the time). Ah well. We'll see what happens on Sunday with this since that was the deadline Barrett gave at the end of the show.

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Post 003)

This weekend, Michelle and I were at a campground for a few days of wedding stuff for her best friend. It was a pretty good time -- much better than I thought it would be. On Saturday (the day of the wedding), there was some down time with Michelle off getting her hair and make-up done with the bride, so I managed to finish Part II of The Idiot.

The second part of the novel was rougher going than the first part. While the first part had a nice contrast of the sweet, decent Myshkin with the craziness of everyone else, it was also grounded by his lack of understanding of everything. He understood Russian society a little, but living abroad, he wasn't completely familiar with everyone else. In the second part, he's much more familiar and that lack of essential innocence just makes the second part a chore at times since it's just bullshit. People talking bullshit and then talking more bullshit. Fuck, I hate these people. They're shallow, vapid, pretentious-yet-stupid, and driven by unknown/unseen passions that cause them to act like fools.

This part picks up six months after the end of the first part. Myshkin has received a large inheritance, but not as large as everyone thinks. Because of his simple nature, he's taken advantage of by swindlers somewhat, but he also doesn't mind too much since he is so innocent and wants to help people so much. It's an interesting complexity, one that leads to misunderstandings, because people don't know how to react to him. Some, in this part, begin to accuse him of not being as simple/nice as he seems, that it's all a ruse so he can get what he wants without appearing rude or cruel. Of course, it isn't a ruse -- he's genuinely a sweet, caring, sensitive man.

There were two parts in this section of the novel that stood out as particularly interesting.

The first was the apparent dismissmal of the illegitimate son of his benefactor by Myshkin. His time abroad to get well was funded by a rich aristocrat and his bastard son has apparently shown up only for Myshkin to dismiss him out of hand. It seems out of character -- and it is, because that's not how it happened at all. Things are made worse by a newspaper article written by one of the son's friends that is very biased and is filled with lies. Myshkin had a friend investigate and discovered that the son isn't really the artistocrat's son at all -- but that he had good reason to think it true and wasn't trying to scam Myshkin; he was simply mistaken. Myshkin, despite this, still wants to give the 'son' 10,000 rubels since he sees himself in the man, who also stutters and is socially awkward. But, as a matter of pride, the 'son' refuses.

What stood out was how disagreeable the friends of the 'son' were. No matter what Myshkin said, they would get offended or try to take issue with it. They don't understand Myshkin or see that's genuinely trying to do the right thing, not thinking of himself at all. He doesn't like to be slandered, but he's more concerned with the truth and with helping others. There's a bit where a wealthy woman who is visiting with her family mentions that despite their actions, Myshkin will go to them the next day and try to persuade them to reconsider his offer of the money, that he will press forward with helping them, especially the 'son' and Myshkin says of course he will, leaving her shocked and annoyed.

The other part is a passage where Myshkin is thinking. He considers going away, leaving all of these people behind, just going somewhere and living his own life, knowing that, if he stays, he'll just get sucked in more. These are people who live for scandal and get offended at the smallest of offences, so bored out of their minds that there isn't anything else but these small, petty things. And Myshkin is better than that -- something he senses, but he doesn't leave. For whatever reason, he doesn't save himself and you just know it's going to end poorly for him.

Despite these two things that I enjoyed, a large chunk of this part is tedious in its attention to the small, petty bullshit. The first part had those elements, but they were more interesting. Dostoevsky just isn't as entertaining here. It all lends itself to that second section where you want Myshkin to leave, because you're just so tired of these stupid, small people, but the actual reading is a little dry and dull.

Two parts down, two to go.

Smarkass Comments: WWE NXT 06.08.10

Beginning with the second 'season' of NXT, the Score here in Canada is showing it on Thursday nights at 8 pm, meaning I could have three hours of wrestling on Thursdays if I chose with TNA Impact on at nine. I tend to tape and watch Impact on Friday during the day, but maybe I'll begin subjecting Michelle to its pure fucking awfulness...

For those who don't know, NXT is a little different from Raw and Smackdown. It replaced the C-show/brand in the WWE, ECW, earlier this year. It's meant to be part typical wrestling show, part reality show... kind of. There are eight 'rookies' paired with eight pros where, by the end of the 'season,' one rookie will win and be given a WWE contract and title shot at a PPV. Last week, Chris Jericho's rookie Wade Barrett won the first round of competition, but, on Raw this week, all of the first group of eight rookies attacked John Cena, CM Punk, and everyone ringside, destroying the ring and some of the surrounding barriers, so this episode had that hanging over its head.

But, from what I've read, not much was done with that.

Anyway...

I came in partway through a match between MVP & Percy Watston and Cody Rhodes & Husky Harris. It didn't wow me, but it was only two or three minutes at the end of a match.

After, we got a promo video for Mike McGillicutty aka Joe Hennig, the son of Mr. Perfect (Curt Hennig). The choice to not have Hennig arrive with his real name is mystifying since that's something that can be traded upon and was one of the big reasons why he was signed to begin with. The WWE had a big hard-on for second- and third-generation wrestlers, often using their family names to get them over. A goofy name like Mike McGillicutty makes little sense. Husky Harris is another third-generation star and his name seems to be a message: you're fat. Oh, Vince...

This season of NXT makes me laugh since at least the first season had some veteran pros like Chris Jericho, William Regal, Christian, CM Punk, and Matt Hardy. This season has Mark Henry and, then... MVP? Definitely a step down as far as the 'pros' go. I mean, Zack Ryder? He's barely around as it is let alone enough to be worth believing as a pro who can advise a rookie. And that's not meant as a slight against Ryder since I like his work and he's obviously a pro, but it's not just about literally being a pro, it's about having that veteran appearance.

Before the final segment of the show, they replayed the attack from Raw and... I love it every time I see it. Especially Bryan Daniel yelling "You are not better than me!" over and over to the beaten and broken John Cena. He really isn't. And a little kid yelling "Mr. King!" at Jerry Lawler. So good.

The episode ended with this season's pros beating up their rookies to send a message. I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get new information on last season's NXT gang, but this established the new group and had a... somewhat appropriate response. Nothing impressed me, but we'll see what happens with next week's episode, which I plan to watch in full.

Eminem Feat. Pink - Won't back down

I am a fan of pop music in general, mainly because these songs are catchy and fun to listen to when driving. Yesterday, two new Eminem singles were released; one featuring Pink and one featuring Rhianna. Now, I really like Eminem and I think he is a genius when it comes to writing and producing music and when I heard that his latest record was filled with new styles that he doesn't often explore and that 'we've never heard before', I was pretty excited. This morning while driving during work, my friend and I heard the last minute or so of the featuring Pink song called Won't Back Down. In short, I have never been so disappointed by an Eminem song in my entire life! Yes, he is definitely not for everyone, but when there is so much hype about a song, and this particular song has two of your favourite artists singing you tend to get your hopes up. I just got back from work and I immediately went to youtube to find this song to listen to it in its entirety, hoping that it would be better than my first impression. It was, just a little, though. I think it's not as much the lyrics or vocals as it is the accompaniment. I don't think I like the rock/rap type hybrid music so much and I think it is really distracting. I'm guessing that if this is the case, I'll get use to it after they over play the song for a couple of weeks and I'll end up really liking it.

I also just finished listening to the featuring Rhianna song called Love The Way You Lie while writing the above. I actually really really like this one and it feels more like the Eminem that I like. It's also pretty close to Airplanes which is a B.O.B. single that just took off like crazy featuring Eminem and Hayley Williams. It's not the softer feel that makes it more enjoyable to the ear, and writing of course is always top notch, but I really think it again has to do with the music and the fact that a softer R&B/rock feel contrasts a lot better with the heavier rap beat vs. a harder rock mix in Won't Back Down which just doesn't really seem to work too well for me.

Anyway, those are just my first impressions and we'll see what happens over the coming weeks when Eminem floods the airwaves.

Links from the Past Week

What I wrote online over the past week (excluding stuff for here):

411mania
* Wrestling Top Five -- World Title Turns
* High Road/Low Road on the TNA Top Ten Rankings
* Wrestling 4Rs including my review of the 06.03.10 TNA Impact
* Wrestler of the Week Year 6 Week 9

Comic Book Resources Reviews
* Avengers Prime #1
* Avengers: The Origin #3
* Vengeance of the Moon Knight #9
* The Thanos Imperative #1
* Irredeemable #14
* Greek Street #12
* FreakAngels Vol. 4

GraphiContent
* Quickie Reviews (June 2 2010)

Comics Should be Good
* Random Thoughts! (June 8, 2010)

Smarkass Comments: WWE Raw 06.07.10

This week's Raw didn't look too promising with the 'Viewer's Choice' gimmick. Basically, it turned out to be the Cyber Sunday PPV -- fans are given a potential match with three options (usually the stipulation or one of the participants) and whichever option gets the most votes is what happens. With Cyber Sunday, the fans would be able to vote in the weeks leading up to the PPV whereas, here, they had from the time the match was announced through a commercial break... so a few minutes. No idea if the voting meant a thing or if it was a lie. The biggest problem with this approach is that, if real, it takes all of the writing power out of the hands of the WWE. Say they're pushing a specific feud or angle, the fans voting for something else could get in the way. Then again, for the most part, they either created some broad matches that could work no matter what or two tepid/unlikely choices with a third that would be voted for no matter what.

* The Chris Jericho/Big Show match was an example of three options (over the top rope challenge, submission match, or bodyslam challenge -- the third chosen) that all worked relatively equally. In all cases, the Big Show's size gave him the advantage and the two could work a pretty similar match. Jericho made this more entertaining than expected with some interesting counters and attacks. The Big Show won, then made him submit, and then tossed him over the top rope for the hell of it.

* Michelle and I had a fun discussion about the Hart Dynasty tag match where people could choose their opponents: the Usos, the Dudebusters, or the Great Khali and Hornswoggle. I had seen online that the third choice was selected (since Raw was three hours, it began at eight in the US, but aired at the normal time of 9:15 here in Canada), so we debated the wisdom of this selection during the commercial break. I couldn't help but see it as a referendum on the Usos who, over the past two weeks, have been built up as the next threat to the Hart Dynasty. That they didn't win the vote says something, right? Michelle wisely pointed out that no team is going to beat a giant and a midget when it comes to people voting. Sadly, that's probably true. That they had the Usos come out after the match made it work in story, though.

* Kozlov and Santino having a dance-off was actually pretty funny.

* The funniest part of the episode had to be "Mean" Gene Okerlund's harsh comments about and to Josh Matthews. I laughed my ass off at his 'loser' comment to Matthews.

* I loved how William Regal didn't even seem to care about being the Miz's tag partner when they showed him before the results were announced. Then, I thought it was great that the Miz and Zack Ryder won their match... without Ryder ever getting tagged in. The Miz's partner was totally meaningless.

* They made sure that Matt Hardy got voted to fight Drew McIntyre by making him a 'mystery choice.' People always vote for the mystery choice.

* The stuff with the A-Team was universally awful -- except the previously mentions "Mean" Gene bit.

* The Kane/Sheamus match was surprisingly decent. Sheamus needs to work with more big men if only because it's helping him become more well-rounded. Winning squash matches only teaches you how to deliver offence, but learning to take a beating and sell -- and how to create interesting counters is very important.

* I was rooting for Rey Mysterio to win the vote to take on John Cena, if only because this seems like the only way we'd ever see them fight one-on-one. Both are faces and will stay faces for as long as I can guess, so this was the best chance to see it. And, say what you will, it would be new and interesting. All three men were good options and CM Punk getting some action is always great.

* The ending with the NXT season one rookies destroying everything was amazing. I was genuinely surprised and was glued to the TV. With an hour left in the show, we moved to the bedroom so Michelle could go to sleep and I almost woke her up for it. What I especially liked was that they were united. Wade Barrett won, but he was just part of the group. There didn't seem to be a leader once it got started, just a single force of eight guys working in harmony. And, fuck, they tore everything down and laid a beating on John Cena... the most shocking development in the WWE in a long time. I'm very interested to see where this goes. With the Score airing NXT starting this week (albeit on Thursday nights), I'm hoping they follow up on it there. Edit: You can see the bulk of the end here. Looks like Barrett was more in charge than I thought -- with the nods to the others at the beginning. Cole escaped. The crowd noises were great, too. Man, what a fantastic end.

All in all, not too bad an episode of Raw. The matches were mostly throwaways that didn't mean anything. We're two weeks out from Fatal 4-Way and still only have the world belt matches, which is troublesome -- should they be building some other matches? But, this episode could have been a lot worse and the ending was fantastic. Absolutely stunning.

Sunday Morning Listening: Orion by Ryan Adams

Recorded in 2006, Orion is the latest release by Ryan Adams, done through his own label and only in a vinyl/download package. I wonder about that choice of release since I would have preferred a CD. But whatever.

The album was described ahead of time as metal-influenced, but my first listening made me think of punk more than anything. With mostly one- and two-minute tracks, I was reminded of Adams's side project of one point, the Finger. Anyone own the Finger CD? Horrible shit. I've tried a few times to get into it and it isn't great. So, my hopes for Orion were immediately low as I expected more of that.

I was wrong.

There is an element of noise pollution in the music, but the more you listen to it, the more the melodies come through. It's a concept album about a space war. I haven't been able to follow the story much since the lyrics are screamed and drowned out a lot by the guitars. But, there is a big sense of cohesion throughout as songs blend together and flow from one to the next.

In a few places, Adam shows off his vocal chops with high-pitched singing including one end to a song that seems taken from dozens of metal songs.

The content of the lyrics seems unimportant almost. Certain snippets get through, certain lines like the final song ending with the reptition of "end of days." Orion seems more like a piece of music you stick in the background and and listen to as such. The vocals are just another instrument, working with and against the rest of the song as needed. None of the songs really stand out except for "Fire and Ice," because it changes things up by slowing down and using a lot of pianos. It's a little interlude and it's the longest song at 3:48... the next longest song is 2:49.

What I'm finding difficult is placing this within the rest of Adams's work. It doesn't sit well next to his official releases. This is more like the throwaway Finger stuff or his various online personas where he'd release dozens of tracks online for streaming, but it's mostly stuff you wouldn't pay money for. Adams flexing his creative muscles and having some fun. This is more polished and cohesive than that other stuff, but it's also somewhat disappointing since it lacks the depth of his regular output.

It almost seems right that I won't have it on a real CD, just a copy I burn myself. But, I am enjoying it and that's what matters.

Some Words on Babylon 5 After Two Seasons

Tonight, Michelle and I finished watching the second season of Babylon 5 on DVD. Now, I've seen the show numerous times before. At least twice completely on TV -- daily syndication/reruns, not the original run of the show -- plus once on DVD years ago. I bought the complete series on DVD for a pretty cheap price on eBay only for it to arrive and be some sort of Asian bootlegs or rips. For the most part, that's not a problem, but on any disc with four episodes plus special features (including a commentary track), the fourth episode (and in one or two cases, the third episode, too) fucks up. Gets choppy, stopping and starting. Too much information compressed or something, I dunno. I've always meant to go back and buy the proper DVDs, but it never seemed like that big a priority since these work a good 90-95% of the time no problem. We've had to skip one or two episodes, but they were pretty minor and unimportant.

This is another in a long line of shows that Michelle and I have watched together. Actually, on our third date, we began the first show we watched together, SportsNight when I came over to her place and brought it with a few other DVDs. I don't remember why it seemed like a good idea to bring SportsNight as something to watch with a girl I didn't know that well -- but it worked out fine. Babylon 5 isn't high on Michelle's list of favourite shows we've watched together. She's liking it fine, but it doesn't match up to the likes of The West Wing, Boston Legal, The Sopranos, and SportsNight. Which is understandable since Babylon 5 isn't a strong show until it gets into season two and the larger story kicks into high gear.

That's the perspective I've been watching it from: the guy who knows what's coming and is picking up on the various clues and hints. It's like rereading a novel and noticing things you didn't see the first time through. An episode like "Babylon Squared" didn't particularly impress Michelle, but knocked me on my ass since I know that J. Michael Straczynski goes back and explains what happened in the third season.

I love and admire the size and scope of the show. In the wake of various HBO shows and Lost, it doesn't seem as impressive for a TV show to launch, conceived as a five-year story -- and then executed as such (with adjustments made along the way). It wasn't the first show with an extended narrative, but I can't think of any on its scale. And unlike a lot of the other shows done with larger stories, this one was planned out in great detail and kept to that plan. It wasn't like Lost, which had a direction in mind, made up some shit as it went along, and then made sense of some of it and left the rest hanging... there are specific clues planted in the pilot episode that are followed up two or three seasons later in Babylon 5.

Beyond the size of the show, what I'm really enjoying is the treatment of alien cultures and characters. There are elements of that 'all of the aliens come from monocultures' mentality that dominates the Star Trek franchise, but nothing as bad as what's there either. As the show progresses, we see more complexities and nuances to each race. More internal struggles and desires. More contradictions.

The best part has to be the ideas of xenophobia and racism, something that Star Trek glosses over. In its quest to be bright and shiny, it really limits itself, while Babylon 5 takes advantage of the flaws in people to drive its stories. Ten years on, there are still humans that hate Minbari because of the war between the two races -- despite Earth winning (in a way that was more like a loss). And it's not something that's just addressed once, resolved, and pushed aside. It's a recurring concept. It isn't the happy future where everyone is nice.

Michelle for the longest time couldn't see any difference between the two shows/franchises. The way I explained it to her was that there's this great episode of Deep Space 9 where Captain Sisko wants to get the Romulans involved in the war with the Dominion and on the side of the Federation. He hires Garak to produce a fake recording of the Dominion's strategists and leaders planning an attack on the Romulans that will convince the Romulan senator that the Dominion intends to break their non-aggression pact. Except it doesn't fool the senator and he intends to go back to his people and expose Sisko for the liar that he is. But, the senator's ship explodes from a bomb planted by Garak. When Sisko confronts him, Garak says that Sisko knew all along that the forgery wouldn't pass and that he hired Garak to get the job done anyway he can, knowing that Garak would go to such great lengths. The episode, told as a log entry by Sisko, ends with him staring at us, saying that he can live with that, showing us that, yeah, winning the war means doing some bad shit, but that's better than the alternatives. For a Star Trek show, that's a 'special' episode. One you see once a season at most. For Babylon 5, that's just how the show is. That tone of cynicism, pragmatism, moral ambiguity... that's what it's about.

But, there's also wonder. There are always moments where characters stop and notice where they are and how amazing it is. Moments of beauty and wonder... I love that.

I've kept things vague for the most part to not spoil things for those who've never seen the show -- and for Michelle since I don't want to spoil anything coming up. And I just felt like talking in circles a bit.

I can't wait for season three, though. Shit gets real. Big time.

Smarkass Comments: WWE Smackdown 06.04.10

My thought regarding this week's episode of Smackdown...

* The show began strong with Kane doing some fantastic mic work regarding the Undertaker, who is out injured after his orbital bone was broken last week, but, in story, was attacked by someone and is in a vegatative state. Kane and the druids treated it like a funeral for the titan of the WWE and, man, Kane was great. When given the chance, he's always been good on the mic -- tonight he was great. Tons of emotion and passion that gave the whole thing a feeling of something big, like maybe the Undertaker won't be coming back. That's not the case, but Kane made it seem like that. And, at the end, when he did the Undertaker's in-ring pose on one knee and just broke down? Fuck, man...

* The Jack Swagger/MVP match was good. Definitely aimed at putting MVP over. He looked strong, but I don't think doing it at the expense of your World Heavyweight Champion is the right way to do it. Swagger got the win, but barely. I really hate the WWE's habit of making every heel weak and only to just win or win by cheating. During the show, Michelle asked me what my gimmick would be if I were a wrestler (and could determine that) and I said I'd be the heel that wins cleanly. The best heel character is the one that backs up everything he says. That's even worse than the chickenshit heel that wins by cheating -- because with that kind of heel, you know he'll get what's coming to him at some point. But the heel that you hate and is right about dominating his opponents? That's the worst. Because you know he's right. Both men looked good here, I just would have preferred Swagger looking better.

* The post-match beatdown of MVP by Hawkings and Archer was lame. I've never understood why beating up someone after a match is supposed to make anyone look tough -- or even draw heat. It's cheap as fuck, especially when it comes out of nowhere. I didn't care about these two before and them beating up MVP sure isn't going to get that job done. How about them putting on a good match for once? Anyone consider that strategy?

* The Kofi Kingston/Drew McIntyre Intercontinental Championship match was solid. Nothing really stood out as amazing, but Michelle and I got distracted partway through by all of the lightning outside. That was cool.

* The stuff with Kane backstage was good, especially with the Big Show where he just looked ready to cry.

* The battle royal was a little slow and horribly paced. It took forever for anyone to be eliminated. I liked the stuff between Kane and Luke Gallows. First, Gallows helping out Kane to build off CM Punk's offer of assistance and, then, the staredown between Kane and the guy that we all know played the Fake Kane years ago. I hated the ending -- as did Michelle. Rey Mysterio winning was a shitty finish, partly because I never buy his momentum-based moves on someone like Kane and because the whole show was building to Kane's win. Subverting expectations doesn't make it better, it just means that the whole thing was poorly written. Kane needed to win because the entire show built to him winning and taking the Undertaker's spot in the Fatal 4-Way match. Rey Rey winning doesn't make sense within the context of the episode. Another example of the WWE choosing surprising and bland over quality and... well, what just plain makes sense. What was the point of the build-up then?

This was a strong episode until the finish, which left both Michelle and I annoyed. Me more than her since I care about this more than she does. Bah.

Why the girly shows?

Well, I actually thought about writing this post last weekend when we (Chad) started our blog.

To give you a bit of context, I absolutely LOVE, and I mean really LOVE, watching all those shows on TLC, slice, the home network, etc. that focus on weddings, dating, home buying/decorating, cake decorating and baking shows, parenting, pet training, and the like. These types of shows are obviously catered to women, but just because they are, doesn't mean that they should necessarily be put down as being brainless and ditsy shows. I often feel like I have to defend myself and the shows (why I don't say I like them just because I do and be done with it is beyond me...) and I just wanted to share a bit of why I love them so much and how I decide which of these shows to watch and which to skip over... and yes, they really aren't all the same! :)

I think it's true that a lot of these shows have the cattiness and drama in them that is appealing to a lot of women, though, to me, I'm not a fan of at all and it's actually this aspect that makes me less likely to like a show. For example, I don't watch any of the Desperate Housewives of... series because all that you can really get out of those shows is drama.

What I do like about a lot of these shows is that they challenge me to think about ideas for things for the future and actually teach me about things that I will inevitably have to learn about in the future, but still make this information fun and easy to understand so that I can actually take something away from it. For example, I like At the end of my leash because, while the drama in that show can get really annoying at times, I like learning about the basic techniques of dog training and issues that may come up that I had never thought about before.

And no, I am definitely not a snob or against anyone who likes watching these types of shows purely for enjoyment. I am really just deep down a girly girl who loves learning about all of these homely-type topics and thinking about how I could apply the concepts of these shows to my own life. Suprisingly enough, I enjoy the weekly evening dramas as my kick-back and relax kind of shows (supported by the constant falling asleep during them... well, them and wrestling!) and I look to these shows as the more 'intellectually stimulating' shows. I'll just say that I'm happy that Chad and Tim usually do their podcasting on Friday nights when the plethora of wedding and wedding dress shows are on so that I may watch and enjoy them without hearing the faintest of faint groans coming from...well... somewhere :p

The Review Reviews: Aristocrats (2005)

Because it amuses me -- and Michelle finds it funny -- anytime I decide to talk about a movie or TV show I've already seen, I'll be sticking the posts under the Review Reviews heading. A companion piece to my Reread Reviews over at Comics Should be Good... and a stupid joke that I can't help but laugh at.

Speaking of which...

The Aristocrats (2005)

I actually reviewed this back in January of 2006 for UWO Gazette after we got the DVD for free. Meaning I got the DVD for free. That gig was awesome for free CDs and the odd free DVD or book. I'm rather fond of that review and it was one of the few things that had people around the office coming up to me to say they dug it. If you've seen the movie or know the joke it examines, you'll understand the odd structure of my review. The review strikes me as oddly short, but the size requirements for articles in the paper were different -- and work better in print.

What doesn't show up online is that I gave this movie a perfect five stars out of five (as we used five stars for movies instead of the standard four). Now, I wouldn't give it that much now. I'd probably give it somewhere around 3.5-4 stars. It's a pretty good documentary that is told entirely through the people being filmed, which is always nice. Narrators can work, but I prefer just jumping in and editing footage together in a compelling way that catches the audience enough -- and trust the audience to catch up.

The documentary revolves around an old joke called the Aristocrats. The basic premise is that this is a joke that comedians would tell one another -- a freeform thing with a framing device that could allow comedians to show off their skills by coming up with the funniest, most disgusting shit ever. The joke is: a man walks into a talent agent's office (or some variation on that basic idea), says he's got a great family act, proceeds to describe a disgusting act that involves sex, incest, bestiality, piss, shit, blood, whatever you want to make the act, and it all ends with the agent asking what the name of the act is and the man saying "The Aristocrats." Nice simple frame with an unlimited amount of room to work with in between.

The documentary is funny. It has over 100 comedians telling the joke in some form or another and it's more about showing the creativity of these people. The direction that each takes the joke. Who focuses on sex, who focuses on shit, who focuses on violence... As Penn Jillette (I believe) puts it, it's about the singer not the song.

The one that I found the funniest was Steven Wright's contribution, which was creepy and horrific in its focus on domestic violence. It stood out in a crowd of cocks, cunts, and shit.

At points, the documentary becomes far too repetitive as they highlight just how... limited the creativity of the comic community can be, cutting between a half dozen to a dozen different comedians basically saying the same thing in their versions of the joke. Some, like Wright, take it in different, unique territories, but, for the most part, it's the same joke in the hands of most of them.

That's part of the point as many comedians point out the common threads in most tellings.

I do love that the bonus features on the DVD give you many renditions in full plus some non-Aristocrats jokes.

I enjoyed this. I didn't laugh quite as much this time as previous viewings, but some tellings still make me burst out laughing. Stuff like the Cartman version when he gets to the family re-enacting 9/11 never stops being funny.

Definitely worth tracking down if you're not easily offended and are interested in the mechanics of comedy, as that's what the movie is really about.

The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky (Post 002)

I have finished Part I of The Idiot.

The first thing I thought of when I finished it was that Dostoevsky could have stopped there and he would have had a nice little novella/short novel. While he could (and did) continue, the story told there was self-contained enough that I don't think anyone would have been too pissed off if things didn't go any further. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows. I do like the concept of each part being self-contained enough that it could function as its own work. I'm sure that that helped serialisation.

It's obvious that The Idiot was written for serialisation with each chapter roughly 10 pages long. Some more, some less, but always around ten pages. After all, there are 16 chapters in Part I and the page it ends on? 164. Nice and tidy. Who says that great writers can't work within limitations and do it for the money?

The second thing I thought of when I finished Part I was that this is some crazy-assed book. The second half of the part basically focuses on Nastasya Filippovna, a young woman whose birthday it is. She will inform a man by the name of Ganya if she'll marry him that evening. Meanwhile, Rogozhin has arrived back in town (on the same train as Myshkin at the beginning of the novel) to claim a large inheritence (1.4 million rupels) and also claim her as his bride since he's loved her for quite some time. Myshkin also loves her -- though we're not sure of that until close to the end. Prince Myshkin is a kindhearted man, a speaker of truths, and not quite the idiot that people think of him.

The end of Part I basically has Nastasya Filippovna turn Ganya down because Myshkin says she shouldn't marry him (as he actually hates her and is only doing it for the 75,000 rupels that the guy she's been a mistress to is putting up to be rid of her. Rogozhin and his gang show up drunk with 100,000 rupels that he said he'd raise and bring in cash to secure her as his bride, but she turns him down when Myshkin says that he would love her no matter what -- even if they were poor. But, she recognises that she is corrupt and a whore, so she runs off with Rogozhin, first tossing his roll of money into the fire to see if Ganya would reach in and get it -- and when he doesn't, she removes it with tongs (it was wrapped in newspaper, so the notes weren't harmed) and gives it to him.

Crazy fucking book.

What strikes me about Dostoevsky's writing here is that characters don't act like people. He's obviously not going for realism but a heightened reality to explore concepts of morality, philosophy, and social interaction. In some ways, it reminds me of the work of Larry David with Myshkin acting very much the part of David/Costanza, but in a noble fashion. He cuts through the bullshit of society and its rules because he cares not for pretense and lies. He shows up to the party uninvited because he needs to speak with Nastasya Filippovna. As the novel progresses, he's revealed himself more and more understanding of what's happening around him. He genuinely seems like the happy idiot at the beginning, but, by the end, he isn't a simpleton, he's a man who sees things for what they are. Who cares if Nastasya Filippovna has had sex? He loves her and respects her... that's all that matters. Of course, he barely knows her, but that doesn't seem to stop people in this world.

One thing I was disappointed about was a game they played at the party where people would tell the worst things they've ever done. It's hard to say if people would be honest, but we never got to Myshkin. I was curious what he would say. What's the worst thing he's done?

I'm really enjoying this book. It's hard to speak to some of the larger ideas and themes since they'll become more apparent as I move through the rest of it -- still three parts and... 414 pages to go.

Before reading this, I was worried about the translation. The edition I have (the picture I'm using for these posts) was bought very cheaply (new!). I got it to put an order from Chapters beyond the $39 mark for free shipping and since it's so cheap, I worried that the translation would be awful. I was even more worried when there wasn't any indication as to who translated it. No translator is listed, which is odd. But, so far, it's been very readable and smooth going. I obviously can't speak to how accurate it all is or if it's a truly good/bad translation, but that it reads smoothly and not like a translation is a good sign usually. There's been maybe one or two instances where the phrasing was stranger than normal, but that happens with the best translations at times.

On to Part II...

Things I've Been Writing This Week

A handy link-dump of what I've written (or contributed to) online this week (aside from what's here):

411mania
* High Road/Low Road on Bret Hart as the new Raw General Manager
* Wrestling 4Rs including my review of the 05.27.10 TNA Impact
* Wrestler of the Week Year 6 Week 9

Comic Book Resources Reviews
* Secret Avengers #1
* 7 Psychopaths #1
* Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?: Dust to Dust #1
* WWE Heroes #3
* Scalped #38

GraphiContent
* Quickie Reviews (May 26 2010)
* The Splash Page Podcast episode 18

Comics Should be Good
* Random Thoughts! (June 1, 2010)